Right to buy

[EFLImpudence]

Because that is akin to saying 'waves magic wand'.

So, have the poor inefficient British car plants benefited from Japanese management or do they have a magic wand?

You are using a privately own business, that didn't didn't 'just replace the managers', as an example why privatisation was wrong!

My implication was/is that it cannot be the fault of the workforce who are in effect the same.
So, what causes the transformation from BL to Honda?
Is it magic wand, private finance or efficient management?

There may have been other answers than privatisation, but your understanding of the situation is laughable.

Of course it is.

 

[sooey]

Then why expect me to waste time with your questions?

Who the fck do you think you are....Mr Spock???

Since when has politics been about logic.
It's about people aspirations in life and their perceptions of which party is most likely to allow them to try fulfil them. In other words, a popularity contest.
BTW I don't expect you to do anything, except be an arzehole.

 

[Bosswhite]

As I see it the Tory party is saying that Housing Associations should build new properties and then sell them off at 50% below market value,

Hardly economic business sense, unless the Tory Government makes up the shortfall using the Tax Payers money >

 

[tony1851]

This is just tinkering and missing the point.

Ultimately, the only way to make housing affordable is to build more of the things.

And the only way to do that is to abolish planning controls.

 

[Micilin]

Edit-I'll look for figures

Why not do that first, instead of just making up stuff then scrambling about to find tenuous evidence that collaborates your opinion.

Millions of houses have been sold, millions have not been repossessed.

And you mention a consumer focus source, of which there is only a *survey* of 2000 people.

I'll bear that in mind

However , I didn't say that all, or millions of the RTBs were repossessed.

I said some people died before they retired (and this could not have used their house to pay for retirement), and some RTB homes were repossessed.

You're not disputing the above, surely?

 

[Micilin]

Article on the negative aspects of ' Right to Buy'



http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/pol...conomically-illiterate-and-morally-wrong.html

 

[big-all]

excellent article sums it up really

 

[Davidel]

The council house is never yours, its not an asset you can monitise, the RTB gave you an asset at greatly reduced rates giving immediate and potentially substantial equity, this is the bribe portion alluded to.

Your simply playing pedantic whilst not actually answering the question.

All benifits give something of 'benefit' to the person, both save or provide money to the person that will provide them with asset's, and to answer another point someone else raised, all 'benefits' can influence behaviour, JSA for instance is specifically designed to do this.

So logically explain why if RTB is a bribe, other benefits are not?

I didn't say anything about benefits and in any case its a completely spurious comparison. I said RTB was a bribe and explained why, regardless of whether or not you had any form of other 'benefits', it deliberately gave the demographic that the policy was aimed at free money either by equity or mortgages cheaper than rent and a guaranteed monitised asset.

 

[AronSearle]

I didn't say anything about benefits and in any case its a completely spurious comparison. I said RTB was a bribe and explained why, regardless of whether or not you had any form of other 'benefits', it deliberately gave the demographic that the policy was aimed at free money either by equity or mortgages cheaper than rent and a guaranteed monitised asset.

Repeating your argument doesn't refute mine.

I have already explained to you that all benefits save you money, give you assets and that benefits are all aimed at demographics, which is how you define RTB being a bribe.

As I see it the Tory party is saying that Housing Associations should build new properties and then sell them off at 50% below market value,

Hardly economic business sense, unless the Tory Government makes up the shortfall using the Tax Payers money >

Nope.

House prices are far in excess of any supply side issues, and you can only build so many of them where people mostly want them (where the prices are high).

The issue is the investment culture in housing, if that isn't tackled, prices will always be artificially high.

The fact we have empty properties, yet sky-high high prices should indicate this.

 

[Micilin]

Does the excess of empty properties occur in areas with sky high prices though?

While ownership culture, buy to let, bank lending policies and RTB are all factors of high house prices most commentators and institutions say supply is the main one


http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/...ces-have-grown-faster-than-anywhere-else.html

 

[Micilin]

Nope.

House prices are far in excess of any supply side issues, and you can only build so many of them where people mostly want them (where the prices are high).

The issue is the investment culture in housing, if that isn't tackled, prices will always be artificially high.

The fact we have empty properties, yet sky-high high prices should indicate this.

But empty properties that are not for sale do not contribute to the supply!

How many of these empty properties are on the market?

I'm sure you researched the figures before stating an opinion

One tactic to force them to go on to the market is a large council tax surcharge -this has led to a 40% drop in empty properties when used .

 

[Davidel]

I didn't say anything about benefits and in any case its a completely spurious comparison. I said RTB was a bribe and explained why, regardless of whether or not you had any form of other 'benefits', it deliberately gave the demographic that the policy was aimed at free money either by equity or mortgages cheaper than rent and a guaranteed monitised asset.

Repeating your argument doesn't refute mine.

I have already explained to you that all benefits save you money, give you assets and that benefits are all aimed at demographics, which is how you define RTB being a bribe.

No benefits give you ownership, prior to the RTB everyone paid rent (or was subsidised based on circumstances), this cannot be said to be a bribe in any shape or form, its a sophist argument, I'm unsure how you fail to grasp this, is it willful?

 

[drgl]

As I see it the Tory party is saying that Housing Associations should build new properties and then sell them off at 50% below market value,

Hardly economic business sense, unless the Tory Government makes up the shortfall using the Tax Payers money >

Do you think the housing associations buy them at true market value?! They don't build them either, the likes of Taylor Wimpey do and must allocate a percentage as "affordable" which the housing associations have. That was a labour idea IIRC.

 

[jeds]

You are all missing the point that this won't happen. Cameron knows the policy might gain him a vote or two but also knows it won't be supported in a coalition so he will never have to worry about taking it through. It's a Cleggy style shot to nothing.

 

[AronSearle]

Does the excess of empty properties occur in areas with sky high prices though?

You mean like the empty flats being bought by foreign investors in London?

http://www.standard.co.uk/news/lond...e-investors-who-keep-flats-empty-8702570.html

While ownership culture, buy to let, bank lending policies and RTB are all factors of high house prices most commentators and institutions say supply is the main one

Most of them are idiots, who ignore the other side of supply and demand.

Supply and demand works both ways, the supply and availability of housing, and the supply and availability of money.

Money is still in supply far in excess of housing, foreign investors, buy to rent both, particularly by baby boomer who can pay cash, and easy access to excessive credit (we are still feeling the effects of self certification mortgages even if their supply is now restricted).

The price of goods is determined by what the market will bear.

There are a lot of people with excess money who set the high market price, people forget this because they focus on all the joe blog's who struggle to raise a deposit for a crappy 1 bedroom flat, the same flats which landlords and investors can cash purchase.

You can also look at the Irish housing boom as an example of this. Before the recession they were building something like 1000% more housing than us (measured per person).

Yet they still saw soaring prices.

I'm sure you researched the figures before stating an opinion

Yes, I did base my opinion on facts and research, here is one link you could have found if you bothered (yet again) to do your own research http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-28349374

I would suggest you stop bothering to debate me, you just come off looking like a numpty.